"Mormon Leader: Nicknames for Faith are 'Victory for Satan' "

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, the term was initially very derisive and was not used by members of the Church itself. In recent years, this doesn't seem to have been the case.

I wasn't aware. The first instances I saw were from members or the Church themselves.

We are "Latter-day Saints." That's four syllables and totally acceptable.

My mistake. I got the impression that "Jesus" had to be mentioned. I found the Church's own style guide and realized that I was mistaken.

"Member of the Roman Catholic Church" is ten. Don't mix apples and oranges and we'll be fine.

Actually, "Roman Catholic" can be offensive - or at least incorrect - in some contexts.

 

[dianaiad]

I have been dealing with anti-Mormon people for many years, and the biggest objections to the new emphasis is coming from them...and other critics. Their objection is invariably "MORMONS AREN"T CHRISTIAN, so HOW DARE THEY CALL THEMSELVES THAT" followed by a great deal of mockery.

Which all by itself tells me it's time we made it clear that the name of the church really IS 'the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints." It has been that for nearly two hundred years, and never has been officially "Mormon." That is a nickname...and the biggest problem with it AS a nickname is that it applies, not only to the CoJCoLDS, but to all the offshoot sects that also believe in the Book of Mormon, but who are NOT members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints.


There are, at my last count, something like 300 of 'em, most of 'em defunct and none of 'em more than five or six thousand in number, but when people think "Mormon,' they generally are thinking about those off shoot polygamous groups.

WE, on the other hand, have 14,000,0000 or so members. Not huge compared to Orthodox or Protestant groups, but considerably more than any other Mormon group.

Those other groups, though, are the polygamists, etc.

So the hierarchy is: Abrahamic--Christian--Restorationist--Mormon--Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints.

Think of it as the Ford F150 truck people preferring not to be lumped in with the Focuses.

So we are asking people to call us by the name we prefer, the name that is the most accurate, and the name that specifically identifies US.

Hardly unreasonable, and clarifies things considerably.

BTW, "saint" simply means 'member.' We certainly don't consider ourselves canonized as the Catholics do.

As according to Mirriam-Webster, anyway:

: one of God's chosen and usually Christian people


b capitalized : a member of any of various Christian bodies specifically : latter-day saint

The change will take a bit of getting used to, but in my experience with the nay-sayers, it's a change in emphasis (not a change in name...we didn't change the name) that is really needed. If we don't do it now, when will we?

 

[sealchan]

I know this is the third thread I've started about Mormons today, but it's only because the replies to my first post "Banned Mormon Cartoon" got me looking into the religion a bit, which in turn has led me to this odd news breaking item:

October 8, 2018
"The president of the Mormon church reiterated Sunday that he wants members, the media and others to use the faith’s full name, saying nicknames are “a major victory for Satan.”

Addressing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ twice-yearly conference in Salt Lake City, Russell M. Nelson said the church’s name “is not negotiable.”

“When the Savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,’ he is serious,” Nelson said. “And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”

Nelson, 94, who is considered a prophet, reiterated that his instruction is not a name change, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

It is a correction,” he said. “It is the command of the Lord.”
​

Now this is a bit strange in light of the fact that

"The faith had embraced and promoted the term Mormon over the past several years, using it in a documentary and TV and billboard ads. A church webpage that was up before Nelson’s announcement had described the term as an “unofficial but inoffensive nickname for members.”
source​

So for close to 200 years Satan has hoodwinked the Mormon leadership into thinking "Mormon" was an acceptable nickname for the church ("Satan's Victory") until god finally prompted Nelson to change the name.

"Mr Nelson, 93, said the move had been prompted by God, who "impressed upon my mind the importance of the name"."
source
​

In light of its importance one has to wonder why god waited so long to make the correction.

.

One would think that such an organization could respectfully make such a change and not throw its own past leadership under the bus. It so undermines one's credibility. It says, "Respect me, but not the last guy in this position".

 

[Skwim]

BTW, "saint" simply means 'member.' We certainly don't consider ourselves canonized as the Catholics do.

So I found out. Looking around I came upon this explanation.

"What does it mean to be a Saint? In the Lord’s Church, the members are Latter-day Saints, and they attempt to emulate the Savior, follow His teachings, and receive saving ordinances in order to live in the celestial kingdom with God the Father and our Savior Jesus Christ. The Savior said, “This is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do.”

The word saint in Greek denotes “set apart, separate, [and] holy.” If we are to be Saints in our day, we need to separate ourselves from evil conduct and destructive pursuits that are prevalent in the world.

As Saints, we also need to avoid the worship of worldly gods. President Hinckley has expressed the desire that “everyone might have some of the good things of life” but has cautioned, “It is the obsession with riches that cankers and destroys.”

If we are to be worthy Saints, we should minister to others and adhere to the Savior’s admonition to love God and our fellowmen."
source​

So it appears the label "Latter-day Saint" doesn't imply a real saint at all, as the term is commonly defined, but was appropriated to identify someone quite different. Gotta wonder why this was done and who was trying to fool whom.

.

 

[Katzpur]

One would think that such an organization could respectfully make such a change and not throw its own past leadership under the bus. It so undermines one's credibility. It says, "Respect me, but not the last guy in this position".

Wow. I must have missed that statement.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I know this is the third thread I've started about Mormons today, but it's only because the replies to my first post "Banned Mormon Cartoon" got me looking into the religion a bit, which in turn has led me to this odd news breaking item:

October 8, 2018
"The president of the Mormon church reiterated Sunday that he wants members, the media and others to use the faith’s full name, saying nicknames are “a major victory for Satan.”

Addressing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ twice-yearly conference in Salt Lake City, Russell M. Nelson said the church’s name “is not negotiable.”

“When the Savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,’ he is serious,” Nelson said. “And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”

Nelson, 94, who is considered a prophet, reiterated that his instruction is not a name change, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

It is a correction,” he said. “It is the command of the Lord.”
​

Now this is a bit strange in light of the fact that

"The faith had embraced and promoted the term Mormon over the past several years, using it in a documentary and TV and billboard ads. A church webpage that was up before Nelson’s announcement had described the term as an “unofficial but inoffensive nickname for members.”
source​

So for close to 200 years Satan has hoodwinked the Mormon leadership into thinking "Mormon" was an acceptable nickname for the church ("Satan's Victory") until god finally prompted Nelson to change the name.

"Mr Nelson, 93, said the move had been prompted by God, who "impressed upon my mind the importance of the name"."
source
​

In light of its importance one has to wonder why god waited so long to make the correction.

.

It took the Raelians thirty years to realize that their symbol, the Star of David with the two triangles connected by a swastika, might be offensive to some Jews. They replaced it with a Star of David connected by a galaxy, but only in some countries. The USA still uses the swastika-version.

Imperfect people n both cases but still you are talking about the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I heard about that a bit ago. I only refer to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as "the Church" as they are the most ancient Christian institutions and constituted the original Church before they schismed. So I won't use that for them but LDS is fine.

 

[Katzpur]

I heard about that a bit ago. I only refer to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as "the Church" as they are the most ancient Christian institutions and constituted the original Church before they schismed. So I won't use that for them but LDS is fine.

Hey! It's good to see you again! How are you doing?

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, "Roman Catholic" can be offensive - or at least incorrect - in some contexts.

It's my understanding that when the word "Catholic" is capitalized, it refers most often to the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Orthodox Catholic Church, and when it begins with a lower-case 'c', it is simply intended to mean "universal"; such usage in found in the Nicean Creed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hey! It's good to see you again! How are you doing?

Hi. Thanks. I'm doing well. I'm a much better place in terms of my health now. I needed time away.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi. Thanks. I'm doing well. I'm a much better place in terms of my health now. I needed time away.

That's so good to hear. I'm genuinely happy to see you, and hope you stick around.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I was just reading about this topic at www.lds.org . Apparently they/we (I'm converting) went along with the nickname Mormon before because they didn't want to offend people, but now they/we want to stand up for themselves so the Church can grow.

 

[viole]

I know this is the third thread I've started about Mormons today, but it's only because the replies to my first post "Banned Mormon Cartoon" got me looking into the religion a bit, which in turn has led me to this odd news breaking item:

October 8, 2018
"The president of the Mormon church reiterated Sunday that he wants members, the media and others to use the faith’s full name, saying nicknames are “a major victory for Satan.”

Addressing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ twice-yearly conference in Salt Lake City, Russell M. Nelson said the church’s name “is not negotiable.”

“When the Savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,’ he is serious,” Nelson said. “And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”

Nelson, 94, who is considered a prophet, reiterated that his instruction is not a name change, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

It is a correction,” he said. “It is the command of the Lord.”
​

Now this is a bit strange in light of the fact that

"The faith had embraced and promoted the term Mormon over the past several years, using it in a documentary and TV and billboard ads. A church webpage that was up before Nelson’s announcement had described the term as an “unofficial but inoffensive nickname for members.”
source​

So for close to 200 years Satan has hoodwinked the Mormon leadership into thinking "Mormon" was an acceptable nickname for the church ("Satan's Victory") until god finally prompted Nelson to change the name.

"Mr Nelson, 93, said the move had been prompted by God, who "impressed upon my mind the importance of the name"."
source
​

In light of its importance one has to wonder why god waited so long to make the correction.

.

I think that mormon leader has an “m” too much.

Ciao

- viole

 

[GoodbyeDave]

True story, but not for snowflakes.

Years ago, the was a knock on the door of a friend's house and her teenage daughter went to answer it. We heard a few words and the door closing. "Who was it", her mother called out, and the girl called back "It's all right, it was only the morons."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's my understanding that when the word "Catholic" is capitalized, it refers most often to the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Orthodox Catholic Church, and when it begins with a lower-case 'c', it is simply intended to mean "universal"; such usage in found in the Nicean Creed.

There are churches in communion with the Vatican and under the authority of the Pope that aren't "Roman" Catholic, e.g. the Eastern Rite churches (Eastern Catholic Churches - Wikipedia). Using the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to the entire Catholic Church can be seen as exclusionary to the branches of the Catholic Church other than the Western (a.k.a. Roman) Rite.

I've also heard people take offense at "Roman Catholic" on the grounds that it's a contradiction in terms: if a church is truly catholic (i.e. universal), then it can't be just Roman, and the term "Roman Catholic" can be seen as denying the universality of the Catholic Church. Admittedly, I haven't heard this complaint that often and most Catholics I meet don't seem to mind... though I would have said something similar about the term "Mormon" until recently.

BTW, in case it wasn't clear before: since some LDS Church members take offense at having the term "Mormon" applied to them, I'll do my best to avoid it in future.

That being said, I do have issues with using the term "Latter-day Saint" to refer to others, similar to my issues with the term "Jehovah's Witness" (i.e. I don't believe they actually witnessed Jehovah). I figure I'll probably take the same approach I do with the JWs and just use the acronym "LDS" in most cases.

 

[Katzpur]

That being said, I do have issues with using the term "Latter-day Saint" to refer to others, similar to my issues with the term "Jehovah's Witness" (i.e. I don't believe they actually witnessed Jehovah). I figure I'll probably take the same approach I do with the JWs and just use the acronym "LDS" in most cases.

LDS sounds good to me.

 

[PruePhillip]

1 - Jesus gave no name for His church. Any name He could give would be
appropriated by every church on earth.
2 - Jesus said if He came in someone's name the world would accept Him.
3 - Jesus did not appear to Joseph Smith.

 

[Katzpur]

1 - Jesus gave no name for His church. Any name He could give would be appropriated by every church on earth.

I think you've come to this conclusion because the Bible does not state that He gave a name to His church. Do you think it logical that He would want His name to be incorporated within the name of His church?

2 - Jesus said if He came in someone's name the world would accept Him.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If you're thinking of a particular scripture, would you mind posting it.

3 - Jesus did not appear to Joseph Smith.

And you know this how? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "I don't believe Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith"? I mean it's certainly not something that can be proven to have happened or not to have happened any more than it can be proven that Jesus rose from the dead or that He did not.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think you've come to this conclusion because the Bible does not state that He gave a name to His church. Do you think it logical that He would want His name to be incorporated within the name of His church?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If you're thinking of a particular scripture, would you mind posting it.
And you know this how? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "I don't believe Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith"? I mean it's certainly not something that can be proven to have happened or not to have happened any more than it can be proven that Jesus rose from the dead or that He did not.

Yes, Jesus said in John 5 "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him."
And when John the Baptist was pressed on the issue of what name his church was he completely
avoided their question.
Neither man, nor those who followed Jesus gave any name to their church, for it wasn't a church as
such but a way of life.
I know Jesus did not appear to Joseph Smith because
1 - Smith is a liar and this is well documented
2 - Jesus said he came to fulfill the law,
3- Jesus second coming would be for all the world to see.

Not...Smith was an honest man, so honest that Jesus confessed His ministry and New Covenant
had failed, and only Smith would see Him.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, Jesus said in John 5 "I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him."
And when John the Baptist was pressed on the issue of what name his church was he completely
avoided their question.
Neither man, nor those who followed Jesus gave any name to their church, for it wasn't a church as
such but a way of life.

I'm afraid that really doesn't address the issue at all. Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." If you don't believe He followed through and actually did so, that's up to you.

I know Jesus did not appear to Joseph Smith because
1 - Smith is a liar and this is well documented
2 - Jesus said he came to fulfill the law,
3- Jesus second coming would be for all the world to see.

Not...Smith was an honest man, so honest that Jesus confessed His ministry and New Covenant had failed, and only Smith would see Him.

Okay, well, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You have an extremely distorted view of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually teaches. Undoubtedly, this is due to the fact that your sources are clearly negatively biased and inaccurate. You are convinced that they are reliable, though, and I'm sure there is nothing I could possibly say to change your mind. Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time trying. I can and will, however, assure you that we Latter-day Saints do not believe that "Jesus confessed His ministry and New Covenant had failed." We do believe that "Jesus' Second Coming will be for all the world to see." In other words, when He appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision, it was most certainly not the Second Coming.

Have a nice day, and perhaps we'll be able to have a more productive dialogue on something else in the future.